Custom Game's

[rockoe10]

I find that most (if not all) custom games have a global rating in their name (i.e. 800 < You < 1300). This seems like a waste of a name to me. Why not have in the description of the game a global rating requirement that if not met will not allow you to even join the game. This option can also be turned "off" or "No restriction" if the game creator wishes. This way we can have game names as they are intended.

[RoundTabler]

What are they intended to be?

[rockoe10]

Oh I don't know, descriptions of the game intended to be played? Sure rating could be part of it, but more like "4v4 15 min no rush" or "2v3 Break the turtles back" or even something simple like "1v1 practice" without having to put a rating required as a prefix or suffix of every name.

[BRNKoINSANITY]

You need rating requirements in most games so that you can sort the balance easier, and so that you don't have the ridiculousness that ensues when you have 500 players paired with 1500 players. At the same time hardline rating restrictions are a really bad idea as when you can't get enough in to start a game most people are lax with the requirements, and some people perform much better than their ranks.

I.E. if someone hosted a setons game that was 1600+ most likely they would let in a couple people lower than that because they know them and their performance level.

[Mycen]

^^ This.

Besides, if the problem is that all the characters in the game name field are used up by rating restrictions, rather than creating a new restriction/requirement for the lobby based on rating, wouldn't it just be easier to add more available characters to the game name field?

[rockoe10]

I suppose that wouldn't be a bad idea, extending the length of the game name. I personally just like organization and thought a separation from rank restrictions and game name would be cleaner. BUT extended game name lengths would allow for both i suppose.